He goes on to describe how the Court's holdings, even in the so-called headliner cases, carefully adhered to Supreme Court precedent and, more importantly, to the duty of the Court, as perceived by Chief Justice Roberts and Chief Justice Rehnquist before him, "to keep the Court from opining about difficult and controversial policy questions." For the details of his analysis, please read the article. But lawyers and non-lawyers would be well-served to mull over Professor Kmiec's conclusion:

A blockbuster term it was not, yet the fidelity of the Court to the rule
of law was consistent and praiseworthy. The Roberts Court answered
legal complaint by adhering closely to its judicial vocation. When other
nations try to persuade an anxious world that the way to advance
democracy is by military intervention, it is a notable and wise
achievement for the high bench to reaffirm how law already decided
invites "we, the people" to discern the full scope of human equality.

It is up to us - and not the justices - to determine whether the command
for equality enshrined in our Constitution actually adds up to a living
reality.